Lord Alton of Liverpool and Others v Secretary of Dtate for the Home Department: POAC 30 Nov 2007

The Mujaheddin-e-Khalq had been proscribed under the 2000 Act by the respondent. It now appealed against such proscription.
Held: The organisation had in the past used terrorist methods, but had repeatedly now renounced the use of violence. The proscription could not be upheld.
Sir Harry Ognall said: ‘We have reached the clear conclusion that the Secretary of State had reasonable grounds for believing that the PMOI was responsible for the attacks listed and, more importantly, to conclude that the PMOI had carried out many attacks over an extended period of time and that the examples set out in Mr Fender’s witness statement demonstrated the range and severity of the terrorist activities in which the PMOI had historically been involved.’ However, there had been a significant change in the MeK’s activities dating from June 2001 onwards, and that the MeK could no longer be said to be concerned with terrorism within the meaning of section 3 of the Terrorism Act.’


Sir Harry Ognall C, Boswell QC, Catchpole QC




swarb.co.uk, statewatch


Terrorism Act 2000 3(3)(b)

Cited by:

See also at POACLord Carlile of Berriew QC, and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Nov-2014
The claimant had supported the grant of a visa to a woman in order to speak to members of Parliament who was de facto leader of an Iranian organsation which had in the past supported terrorism and had been proscribed in the UK, but that proscription . .
See AlsoLord Carlile and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 16-Mar-2012
The claimant had invited an Iranian dissident to speak in Parliament, and now challenged the decision of the Home Secretary to refuse her a visa on the basis that her exclusion was not conducive to the public good. She was a member of an . .
See Also at POACLord Carlile of Berriew and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 20-Mar-2013
The applicants complained of the refusal of a visitors permit by the respondent to an eminent Iranian dissident.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Although the decision was an interference in the human rights of the applicants, that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.542207